On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:20:56AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > BIOS guys also said that fam 10h need mmconfig via eax accessing, may
> > need OS do sth, so it is safe to stay with MCFG entry for SB like
> > mcp55...
> >
> > but latest kernel already have that workarou
On 9/14/07, Andreas Herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that a workaround went into the kernel
> (commit 3320ad994afb2c44ad34b3b34c3c5cf0da297331)
> for a feature that is not yet switched on by the OS.
>
> Because Yinghai's patch is rejected. Or did I miss something?
> Did Andi rejected
On 9/14/07, Andreas Herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This stuff was long documented in some preliminary NDA specs. And some kernel
> developer(s) had access to it. So if it is such a big deal, why didn't they
> speak
> up earlier?
I did ask about that when I was porting linuxbios for it. t
Andreas Herrmann wrote:
>>>
>> I'm not talking about Linux here. I'm talking about any random system
>> software (which may or may not be Vista, and may nor may not even be an
>> OS.)
>
> Are you serious? You are worried about Vista compatibility issues for
> new hardware? Here on LKML? I thought
Usually one shouldn't reply to such mails. But I cannot resist.
Because partially there was told such nonsense ...
Of course the following is just my personal view.
On 2007-09-13 20:54:41, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:20:56AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin
Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:20:56AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> BIOS guys also said that fam 10h need mmconfig via eax accessing, may
>>> need OS do sth, so it is safe to stay with MCFG entry for SB like
>>> mcp55...
>>>
>>> but latest kernel alrea
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:20:56AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > BIOS guys also said that fam 10h need mmconfig via eax accessing, may
> > need OS do sth, so it is safe to stay with MCFG entry for SB like
> > mcp55...
> >
> > but latest kernel already have that workarou
Andreas Herrmann wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:53:15PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thursday 13 September 2007 12:47, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:47:42AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thursday 13 September 2007 04:21, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[PATCH] x86_64: set cfg_size for AMD Famil
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:53:15PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thursday 13 September 2007 12:47, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:47:42AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Thursday 13 September 2007 04:21, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > > > [PATCH] x86_64: set cfg_size for AMD Family 10h in c
Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 9/13/07, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> BIOS guys also said that fam 10h need mmconfig via eax accessing, may
>>> need OS do sth, so it is safe to stay with MCFG entry for SB like
>>> mcp55...
>>>
>>> but latest kernel already have that wor
On 9/13/07, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > BIOS guys also said that fam 10h need mmconfig via eax accessing, may
> > need OS do sth, so it is safe to stay with MCFG entry for SB like
> > mcp55...
> >
> > but latest kernel already have that workaround to make m
Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> BIOS guys also said that fam 10h need mmconfig via eax accessing, may
> need OS do sth, so it is safe to stay with MCFG entry for SB like
> mcp55...
>
> but latest kernel already have that workaround to make mmconfig via eax...
>
This is actually a good point. Since the C
On 9/13/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 13 September 2007 12:47, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:47:42AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Thursday 13 September 2007 04:21, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > > > [PATCH] x86_64: set cfg_size for AMD Family 10h in case MMCONF
On Thursday 13 September 2007 12:47, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:47:42AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 September 2007 04:21, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > > [PATCH] x86_64: set cfg_size for AMD Family 10h in case MMCONFIG is
> > > used.
> > >
> > > reuse pci_cfg_space_size but
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:47:42AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thursday 13 September 2007 04:21, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > [PATCH] x86_64: set cfg_size for AMD Family 10h in case MMCONFIG is used.
> >
> > reuse pci_cfg_space_size but skip check pci express and pci-x CAP ID.
>
> I just rejected a sim
On Thursday 13 September 2007 04:21, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> [PATCH] x86_64: set cfg_size for AMD Family 10h in case MMCONFIG is used.
>
> reuse pci_cfg_space_size but skip check pci express and pci-x CAP ID.
I just rejected a similar patch -- this should be done using MMCONFIG
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:21:43 -0700 Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +/**
> + * Regular PCI devices have 256 bytes, but AMD Family 10h Opteron ext config
> + * have 4096 bytes. Even if the device is capable, that doesn't mean we can
> + * access it. Maybe we don't have a way to generate ex
17 matches
Mail list logo
